# MOHINDER SINGH & ANR v. STATE 0!' HARYANA March 5, 1974 ·

- **Citation:** [1974] 3 S.C.R. 519
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-03-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 221 of 1970
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, V. R. Krishna Iyer
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohinder-singh-anr-v-state-0-haryana-march-5-1974-6099
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

519
Indian Penal Code, Ss.409, read with s.109-Whether conviction could be sustabred
11n oral evidence ir. the Jae~ flf negative written evidence-Illiteracy -Ho~v for benefit
could be given.
The complainant who was Sarpanch of gram panchayat asked the
secor.~
appellant, his pre,decessor, to make over the records of the gram panchayat, transfer its
accounts and hand over the money belonging to the gram panchayat to him. The
second appellant put him off. \Vhen he made a complaint to higher authorities the
second appelJant transferred some amount to the complainant, but not the whole
of it. The complainant tiled a suit in Civil Court for recovery Or the balance and
rendition of accounts in respect of the unpaid amount which was also large. The
suit of the complainant for rendition of accounts was dismissed by the Civil Court.
accepting the evidence of the second appellant and his plea that the accounts bet\1.'ecn
the parties had been settled. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the
first appellant, an advocate and the second appellant had made him sign an official
receipt of the gram panchayat with its official seal affixed on the receipt and took
it without making the payment of money to him. The second appellant was tried
for offences under sections 409, 461 read with 109 and 474 Indian Penal Code and
the first appellant under s.409 read with s.109, section 467 read with s.109 Indiah
Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment
and fine. The High Court confirmed their conviction and sentences. Before the
trial court the complainant led oral evidence to prove that the appellants had taken
advantage of his il!iteracy and a trick was played upon him by them.
AI1owing the appeals to this Court,
1-IELD : There are de<ir infirrrdties in the prosecution ca<;e.
It is not possible
to sustain the conviction of the accused. Oral evidence which runs counter to an
ac!rnission contained in writing signed by a party in the very nature of things is a
,·ery \\'eak piece of evidence and cannot be accepted without a grain of salt. Jn
the face of the finding of the Civil Court it would be incongruous to convict the
second appellant on
th!
bisis that th! amJT1t of th~ ·Gra.m PJn.;hayat
\\'as still due from him. The complainant may be illiterate but there must be a
limit up to which the benefit of illiteracy can be extended to him. The fact that
the complainant was illiterate could not induce the court to ignore the infirmities
in his evidence or to fill in lacunae in the prosecution case.[524B--C,525D-D,526A-B]
This fact would also not justify the benefit cf the doubt Peing given to the prosecution instead of to the accused. [526B]

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
)
H
MOHINDER SINGH & ANR.
v
STATE 0!' HARYANA
March 5, 1974 ·
[H. R. KHANNA AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.j
519
Indian Penal Code, Ss.409, read with s.109-Whether conviction could be sustabred
11n oral evidence ir. the Jae~ flf negative written evidence-Illiteracy -Ho~v for benefit
could be given.
The complainant who was Sarpanch of gram panchayat asked the
secor.~
appellant, his pre,decessor, to make over the records of the gram panchayat, transfer its
accounts and hand over the money belonging to the gram panchayat to him. The
second appellant put him off. \Vhen he made a complaint to higher authorities the
second appelJant transferred some amount to the complainant, but not the whole
of it. The complainant tiled a suit in Civil Court for recovery Or the balance and
rendition of accounts in respect of the unpaid amount which was also large. The
suit of the complainant for rendition of accounts was dismissed by the Civil Court.
accepting the evidence of the second appellant and his plea that the accounts bet\1.'ecn
the parties had been settled. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the
first appellant, an advocate and the second appellant had made him sign an official
receipt of the gram panchayat with its official seal affixed on the receipt and took
it without making the payment of money to him. The second appellant was tried
for offences under sections 409, 461 read with 109 and 474 Indian Penal Code and
the first appellant under s.409 read with s.109, section 467 read with s.109 Indiah
Penal Code and were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment
and fine. The High Court confirmed their conviction and sentences. Before the
trial court the complainant led oral evidence to prove that the appellants had taken
advantage of his il!iteracy and a trick was played upon him by them.
AI1owing the appeals to this Court,
1-IELD : There are de<ir infirrrdties in the prosecution ca<;e.
It is not possible
to sustain the conviction of the accused. Oral evidence which runs counter to an
ac!rnission contained in writing signed by a party in the very nature of things is a
,·ery \\'eak piece of evidence and cannot be accepted without a grain of salt. Jn
the face of the finding of the Civil Court it would be incongruous to convict the
second appellant on
th!
bisis that th! amJT1t of th~ ·Gra.m PJn.;hayat
\\'as still due from him. The complainant may be illiterate but there must be a
limit up to which the benefit of illiteracy can be extended to him. The fact that
the complainant was illiterate could not induce the court to ignore the infirmities
in his evidence or to fill in lacunae in the prosecution case.[524B--C,525D-D,526A-B]
This fact would also not justify the benefit cf the doubt Peing given to the prosecution instead of to the accused. [526B]
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.
221 of 1970 A-S 47 of 1971.
Appoals by spocial leave from the judgment and order dated the
· 8th October, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appoals Nos. 374 and 376of19(0.
Nuruddin· Ahmad and U.P. Singh, for the appellant,.
N. N. Goswamy and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.-Surat Singh and Mohinder Singh Advocate were
tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Karna! for various.
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
£19741 3 S.C.R.
offences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Surat
Singh under section 409 Indian Penal Code, section 467 read with
section 109 Indian Penal Code and section 474 Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 or in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a further period of eight months on the
irst count, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of
one year on the third count. Mohinder Singh accused was convicted
under section 409 read with section 109 Indian l"enal Code and section
467 read with section 109 Indian Penal Code and was s.entenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
inc of Rs. 25,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of eight months on the first count and to undergo rigorou• imprisonment for a period of one year on the second count.
The oubstantive sentences of imprisonment in the case of each' of the
t1110 accused were ordered to run concurrently. It was also directed
that out of the fine, if realised, Rs. 46,875 should be paid to the
Gram Panchayat Neemwala. On appeal the Punjab and Haryana High
Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. By special leave Mohinder Singh has filed criminal app~al No. 221 of 1970 while Surat
Singh has filed criminal appeal No. 4·, of 1971. This judgment would
dispose of both the appeals.
The prosecution case i<J. that prior tp the year 1961, four villagi;:s,
namely, Seonsar, Hailwa, Neemwala an.J Ramgarh Ror had a common
Gram Panchyat known as Gram Panchyat Seonsar. Surat Singh
accused was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat. Ram Kishan was
then a member of the Gram Panchyat and he represented village Ramgarh Ror. Each· of the other three villages was also represented by a
Panch. Jn 1957-58 the Government acquired large areas of shamlat
land of villages Ramgarh Ror, Seonsar and Hailwa for the purpose ot
establishing a big forest plantation. The shamlat land of these villages
had already vested in the Panchyat under the Punjab Village Common
Lands (Regulation) Act. On the acquisition of those lands, the Government paid compensation amounting to Rs. 3,51,844. Out of that
amount, Rs. 1,68,844 represented the compensation for the acquisition
of •hamlat land in village Ramgarh Ror. Surat Singh in his capacity
as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchyat received those amounts and the
compensation for each of the villages was kept distinct and separate,
so that the benefit of the money should accrue only to the respective
villa~es. The compen,.tion amount of Rs. 1,68,800 relating to Ram-
:arh Ror was invested as follows :
(i) Rs. 1,00,000 deposited in the Kaithal Mandi Post Office
(ii) Rs. 50,000 deposited in the Reserve Bank of India New Delhi
(iii) Rs. 18,800 deposited in the Central Co-operative Bank Kai-
. thal
The Gram Panchyat of Seonsar continued to function up to the beginaioC of 1961. Some amounts out of the compensation deposited were
withdrawn for beini: spent for those villaecs.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
MOHINDER SINGH v. HARYANA (Khanna, /.)
521
In the beginning of 1961 the Government split the area of Gram
Panchyat Seonsar into two separate areas and constituted two Gram
Panchyats. In this new arrangement the Gram Panchyat Seonsar
functioned only for two villages, namely, Seonsar and Hailwa. For
villages Neemwala and Ramgarh Ror a new Gram Panchyat known
as Gram Panch>at Neemwala was constituted. After the frrmat"rn
of the new Paoi,;;h)at Ram Kishan PW was elected Sarpanch of Grcm
Panchyat Neemwala, while Surat Singh continued as Sarpar ct of
Gram Panchyat Seonsar. After the elections Ram Kishan as Sa1pa1 'b
of Gram Panchyat Neemwala made a demand for the custody ot tt.e
Pancbyat record relating to the two villages Neemwala and Ramgarb
Ror and also asked for the payment of the amount standing in the
account of village Ramgarh Ror. Surat Singh eccused, however, put
off Ram Kishan PW. Ram Kishan thereupon made an application
to the higher authorities. Surat Singh accu!'Cd thereafter transferred
the deposit of Rs. 1,00,000 in the name of Ram Kfahan as Sarpanch
of the new Panchyat. No steps were, however, taken by Surat Singh
accused to transfer the remaining amount. As Surat Singh did not
render accounts, Ram Kishan PW consulted Mohinder Singh Advocate accused and on the latter's advice filed a suit for rendition of the
accounts against Surat Singh in the Court of Sub Judge at Kaith.al,
Mohinder Singh accused was also engaged by Ram Kifhan PW as
his counsel in that cllfe. Ram Kishan then learnt that Mohinder Singh
accused had good relations with Surat Singh and he, therefore, requested Mohinder Singh for his help for the return of the balance of
the amount lying with Surat Singh. On the advice given by Mohinder
Singh, Ram Kishan got passed resolution DB/I by Gram Panchyat
Neemwala on May 14, 1963 whereby Ram Kishan was authorised on
behalf of the Panchyat to receive the amount due from Gram Panchyat
Seonsar. Ram Kishan also handed over memorandum PWJ/A which
had been issued by the Reserve Bank of India for the deposit of Rs.
50,000 to Mohinder Singh accused. Ram K.ishan thereafter made
enquiries from Mohinder Singh about the amount of Rs. 50,000 but
on each occasion Ram Kishan was put off by Mohinder Singh by saying that the amount had not been transferred and that as soon as it
was done, he would get in touch with Ram Kishan. As the payment
of the amount was being delayed and some funds were needed for the
school building, Ram Kishan talked to Mohinder Singh in the first
week of December 1963 about the payment of Rs. 6,000 which WM
due as interest. Mohinder Singh then told Rain Kishan to come to
his office on December 13, 1963 with the receipt book of the Panchyat
and its official seal. Mohinder Singh also mentioned that he would
send for Surat Singh accus,d on that day and would secure the payment·
of the interest amount of Rs. 6,000 as well as of the principal amount
if the same· too was received.
On December 13, 1963 at about 10 a. m., it is stated, Ram Kishan
PW accompanied by Mussadi PW went to the office of Mo hinder Singh
accu,ed with the official receipt book and seal of Neemwala Pancbyat.
Both the ·accused were present in the office. Mo hinder Singh accused
then called a boy aged about 14 or 15 years and got something written
5-M 45.Sup CIJ7~
522
SUPRE;\fE COURT REPORTS
[19741 3 s.c .•.
on the official receipt book which had been brought by Ram Kishan.
Ram Kishan knows only Landa character and is otherwise .illiterate.
Mussadi too is illiterate. Both Ram Kishan and Mussadi kept sitting
at some distance smoking Hookah. Ram Kishan was then called by
Mohinder Singh accusod and his signatures were obtained on receipt
DA a• well as counterfoil Pl of that receipt. The official seal of the Gram
Panchyat was also taken from Ram Kishan and wa• affixed both on
the receipt and the counterfoil thereof under the signotures of Ram
Kishan. Receipt DA was torn off from the receipt book by Mohinder
Singh accused and was handed over to Surat Singh accused. When
Ram Kishan protested that the receipt had been taken from him without his being handed over any money, he was assured by Mohinder
Singh accused that he would be taken to the bank and paid the money
there. Ram Kishan, Mussadi and the two accu•ed then went to Cooperative Bank Kaithal. The clerk on duty in the bank told Mohinder
Singh that the sum of Rs. 6,000 on account of interest could not be
paid in cash without sanction but he would transfer the amount in
the name of Gram Panchyat Neemwala from the account of Gram
Panchyat Seonsar by a book entry. The amount of Rs. 6,000 in this
way transferred to the account of Gram Panchyat Neemwala. Surat
Singh accused then went away, while Ram Kishan, Mussadi
and
Mohinder Singh went to the office of Mohinder Singh. At the office
Ram Kishan demanded back the receipt from Mohinder Singh as the
amount had not b>en paid in ca.h. Ram Kishan w.,, howeve•, told
by Mohinder Singh that the receipt was with Surat Singh. Mussadi
PW was then sent to call Surat Singh but the latrer declined to come.
Mohin4er Singh told Ram Kishan that he need not worry. Mohinder
· Singh also wrote the word "Cancelled" on the counterfoil Pl. Mohinder
Singh further promised to get the original receipt back from Surat
Singh. Ram Kishan and Mussadi then came back to the village. Some
days later a fresh election was held and Mehar Chand became the
Sarpanch of Neemwala Panchyat.
According further to the .pro>ecution case, about a month after
the fresh election! Ram Kishan learnt from an overseer of Block Samiti
Chika that Surat Singh had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 50,000 from
the bank and was giving out that ~~ had paid that money to Ram Kisban
and got a receipt from Ram Kishaoi for that11mount. Ram Kishan at
first did not attach. much importance to that talk but when the rumour
persisted, Ram Kishan learnt on en11uiry that the amount ha<! already
been withdrawn by' Surat Singh accused some months earlier. Ram
Kish.an then made a complaint to the District Magistrate Karna! on
June 12, 1964 praying that a caso might be registered against. the
accusod under sections 1208, 409, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Ponal
Code. A case wa~ th~reaftcr registered against the accused.
During the investigation of the case it transpired that an amount
of Rs. 46,8/S Which was lying in deposit with the Reserve Bank of
India in the accaunt of Gram Panchyat Seonsar was sent on July 12.
1963 by bank draft lo Surat Singh. The aforesaid amount was credited
in the nccaunt of Snrnt Singh whh tho Co-oporati\'e Bank Kaithal
.\
c
D
F
G
H
"
41
c
D
E
F
G
H
MOHINDER SINGH v. HARYANA (Khanna, l.)
523
on July 18, 1963. The same day, i.e. July 18, 1963 Surat Singh withdrew the amount of Rs. 46,875 from the bank by means of a cheque.
·11 further transpired during the investigation that receipt DA which
was got signed from Ram Kishan was for an amount of Rs. 46,875
and that the said receipt bore the date July 18, 1963. Writing marked
A was also made on copy DB of resolution DB/I. The writing was as
under :
"Rs. 46,875 received.
Receipt accordingly issued.
Thumb lmpres.ion, Ram Kishan
Sarpanch, Neemwala
18-7-63."
The charge which was framed agaimt Surat Singh was that he had
committed criminal breach of tru't in respect of Rs. 46,875 while that
framed against Mohinder Singh wa0 that he had abetted the commission
of the above offence. There were also charges against the two accused
about their having forged the writings purporting to be receipts issued
by Ram Kishan in respect of the amounts of Rs. 46,875. Surat Singh
was further charged for keeping in his poFSession the forged receipts
for fraudulent and dishonest U>e of the same.
Al the trial Surat Singh accused admitted that a sum of Rs.
1,68,844 had been received as compensation for acquisition of the land
of village Ramgarh Ror. Surat Singh furthe1· admitted that out of that
amount, Rs. 50,000 had been deposited in the Reserve Bank of India.
It was not disputed by Surat Singh that the Gram Panchyat Seonsar
had been split into two Panchyats. According to Surat singh, he withdrew on July 18, 1963 Rs. 46,875 found
due on the basis of
dep~sitcertificate of the value of Rs. 50,000 and he paid the same amount
to Ram Kishan PW as per receipt Ex. A. on DB as well as the official
receipt DA. Surat Singh denied having gone to the office of Mohinder
Singh on December 13, 1963. The allegation that the receipts were
fabricated or that any amount had been misappropriated by Surat Singh
were denied by him.
Mohinder Singh accused admitted ~aving filed a suit as counsel
of Gram Panchyat Neemwala against Surat Singh. Mohinder Singh
denied the other allegations against him. Mohinder Singh expressed
ignorance about the withdrawal of money from the bank by
Surat Singh on July 18, 1963: Likewise the allegation that Ram Kishan
and Mussadi had visited his office on December 13. 1963 was demed
by Mohinder Singh.
Mohinder Singh also denied that the
word
"Cancelled" on counterfoil Pt of receipt DA was in his hand.
The trial Court,.as
mentioned earlier, accepted the prosecution
allegations and convicted and sentenced the two accused as above. On
,1pp.!al the High Court .affirmed the jt1dgmcnt of the tna1 court.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[! 97 4] 3 S.C.R.
In appeal before us Mr. Nuruddin, learned council for the appell·
ants has taken us through the evidence on record and has contended
that the amount of Rs. 46,875 after being withdrawn from the bank
on July 18, 1963 was paid by Surat Singh to Ram Kishan. It is
farther contended that Ram Kishan instead of accounting for that
amount bas falsely involved the two accused in this case. As against
that, Mr·. Goswami on behalf of the state has supJiOrted the judgments
of the High Court and the trial court and has urged that no case
has been made for interference with the view taken by those courts.
We have given the matter our consideration and find that there
are 11Jaring infirmities in the prosecution case and as such, it is not
possible to sustain the conviction of the accused. It is in the evidence
of Kitab Singh (PW 4) who was posted as an official in the Kaithal
Co-operative Bank that on July 18, 1963 Surat Singh withdrew the
amount of Rs. 46,875 from that bank after that amount had been
transferred from the Reserve Bank of India New Delhi. The accused
have brought on the record receipt DA. It is a printed receipt in
Hindi in the prescribed form. The necessary particulars have been
filled in this receipt. The receipt is dated July 18, 1963 and according
to it, Rs. 46,875 were received by Ram Kishan PW from Surat Singh
Sarpanch Seonsar. This receipt admittedly bears the signatures of
Ram Kishan in Landa character and also bears the seal of Gram
Panchayat Neemwala. In addition to receipt DA, the accused have
produced another receipt about the payment of Rs. 46,875 by Surat
Singh to Ram Kishan. This receipt is on copy DB of resolution
DBjl which had been passed by Gram Panchayat Neemwala on May
14,1963. Ram Kishan PW was authorised by this resolution to receive
the amount of Rs. 50,000 which had been deposited in the Reserve
Bank of India and to issue a receipt after receiving that amount. Copy
Ex. DB is admittedly in the hand of Mukand Lal (PW 13), who wa•
the Secretary of Panchayat Neemwala and is signed by him. The
receipt is in the form of writing A wherein it is recited that Rs. 46,875
had been received by Ram Kishan and he had also issued a receipt in
token of his having received that amount. The writing is dated July
I~, 1963 .. The accused exami_ned Gian Parkash Sharma (OW 3)
· Fmger. Prmt Expert, whose evidence shows that the thumb impression on writing marked A tallied with the admitted thumb impression
of Ram Kishan PW. Ram Kishan PW also did not deny that the thumb
impr;ession undern~ath wr.iting !'larked A was his own. According
to him, the thumb 1mpresSion might be hIS own. There is in addition
evidence on the record that the writing marked A was in the hand of
Chaudhry Daryao Singh, who was the Manager ofro-operative Bank
in July, 1963. Chaudhry Daryao Singh is now dead, but the fact that
the writing marked A on Ex. DB is in the hand of Chaudhry Daryao
Sin&h is proved by the testimony of Kitab Singh (PW 4) who was
ihchar30 of the Co-op~rative Bank, as wen as by that of Nihal Singh
(DW I), who 19 a first cousm of Daryao Singh deceased and is familiar
with his handwriting. The receipt DA as well as the writing marked
A on which were signed and thumb marked by Ram Kishan PW
s~ow th~t Surat Singh immediately after withdrawing the amount of
.
..
A.
B
c
D
E
G
H
MOHINDER SINGH v. HARYANA (Khanna, I.)
525
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19741 j S.C.R.
got the date and amount scored off and got inserted another date and
A
amount. Ram Kishan may be illiterate but there must be a limit μp
to which the benefit of illiteracy can be extended to him. The fact
that Ram Kishan is illiterate cannot induce the court to ignore the
infirmities in his evidence or to fill in lacunae in the pr.osecution case.
In any case, this fact would not justify the benefit of the doubt being
given to the prosecution, instead of to the accused.
An attempt was made by the prosecution to show that the receipt
book from which receipt DA was issued had been purchased on October 24, 1963 from Harish Chander (PW JO), as per cash memo PWl/D.
· This cash memo, however, relates to the sale of receipt book No. 9.
There can be hundrede of such receipt books and it is admitted by
Harish Chander that he cannot say whether the cash memo relates to
the receipt book from which receipt DA had been issued or to some
other receipt book. It, therefore, cannot be said to have been proved
that receipt book from which receipt DA we.s issued had been purchased
on October, 1963.
There are alsG "Some other circumstances which create a doubt about
the correctness of the prosecution allegati0ns, It is admitted by Ram
Kishan PW that long before he made a complaint to the District
Magistrate, he came to know that SuraLSingh was npresenting that
he had paid the amount of compensation which was lying in deposit
with the Reserve Bank of India to Ram Kishan and that Surat Singh
was in possession of receipt for the payment of that amount. Surat
Singh also mentioned in a suit brought by him in August 1964 against
Ram Kishan that he had paid the amount of Rs. 46,875 to Ram Kishan
as per receipt dated July 18, 1963. It would, therefore, follow that
Surat Singh has always been taking the stand that he had paid the
amount of Rs. 46,875 to Ram Kishan on July 18, 1963 as per receipt
issued by the latter and that the plea taken by him at the trial was not
the result of an afterthought.
Another fact which may also be mentioned in the above context i'
that a suit was brought in September 1962 by Ram Kishan PW on
hehalf of Gram Panchayat Neemwala against Gram Panchayat Seonsar
through Surat Singh accused for rendition of account in respect of the
assets of Gram Panchayat Neemwala. Jn that suit the plea of Surat
Singh was that the account between the parties had been settled.
Evidence was also led by Surat Singh to that effect. The court accepted
this evidence and held as per judgment dated October 19, 1963 that the
accounts between the parties had boen settled. The plaintiff's suit
was accordingly dismissed. In the face of that finding of the civil
court, it would appear to be incongruous to convict Surat Singh on the
basis that the amount of Gram Panchayat Neemwala was still due from
him.
B
c
D
E
f
G
ff
A
B
c
MOHINDER SlNGH v. HARYANA (Khanna, /.)
527
We thus find that the prosecutic>n case suffers from glaring infirmities.
In fact, there are some circumstances which lend credence to
the plea of the accused.
rt is, in our opinion, not pos'iible to sustain
the conviction of the accused on the material brought on reeord.
We accordingly accept the appoals, set aside the conviction of the
accused and acquit them.
Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to one aspect.
A huge amount belonging to the Gram Panchayat Neemwala is alleged
to have been misappropriated by s~meone. The case of the prosecutic;>n is that misappropriation of the amount was facilitated by the
illiteracy of the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It may, therefore
be necesliary that some sillutary directions are issued or rules made so
that because of the illiteracy of a Sarpanch the funds of the Panchayat
are not emh.zzled or used for any purpose other than that of the Panchayat.
P.ll.R.
Appeals allowed